At 07:58 AM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>> At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>> >But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a
>> ten %
>> >drop in the rate would not stop you from being
>> boiling
>> >mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but
>> >philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup
>> >must go for a whole loaf, never part of one.
>> >Compromise is for enlightenment humanists.
>>
>> So, would you argue that "compromise" is the
>> appropriate long-term solution
>> to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic
>> fundamentalist jihadism, and
>> racist segregation? Or should enlightened
>> humanists always maintain a
>> long-term goal of complete victory in those cases?
>
>My point was that everybody has some line where they
>have drawn between the "unpleasant but bearable" and
>the "intolerable". Your reaction to the former may be
>pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant
>without having to get ballistic over what remains.
>
>The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight
>"evil".
>
>Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced
>that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog
>world.
That's fine. I happen to respectfully disagree. I believe that all
people are endowed with unalienable rights - and I believe that those
rights don't change just because some people are not like you or I. Given
these beliefs, what is my moral obligation to the fact that our
civilization is killing over 1 million innocent children each year?
I am sure that even you would agree, Dr. Brin, that there are some
situations that do not call for pragmatic compromise. For example, if you
were a Hutu in Rwanda in the mid-1990's, it would be pragmatic for you to
not speak out against the government-sponsored genocide, while also
choosing to not participate in the killing of Tutsis with your fellow
Hutus. Yet, is this sort of compromise really the appropriate course of
action for an enlightened humanist? A similar situation would be in
1930's - as an enlightened humanist, do you give safe refuge to Jews
fleeing persecution? Or do you agitate for a pragmatic compromise whereby
Jews are taken to camps for hard labor, but without execution? Or do you
romantically agitate for the "whole loaf" - a German society where Aryans
and Jews live side by side in peace?
In short, I find your distinction between the "pragmatic compromise" of
"enlightened humanists" and the "whole loaf" approach of "neocon romantics"
to be utterly unpersuasive. For one thing, it seems to me that the
choice between "pragmatic compromise" and "whole loaf" is largely
determined by the gravity of the situation, rather than ideology.
Moreover, if anything, pro-life advocates have taken precisely the
"pragmatic compromise" approach you appear to advocate. I haven't seen a
serious push for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution in quite some
time. Rather, pro-life advocates have instead persued a ban on the
horribly grisly Dilation&Extraction/Partial-Birth procedure, we have
persued parental/judicial notification laws for minors, we have persued
mandatory waiting periods for abortions, and soon you will see push for a
ban on gender-selection abortions. On the other hand, it has been the
pro-choice advocates who have opposed all of these very reasonable and
pragmatic compromises at every step of the way.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
